Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: brewster Date: Dec 8, 2003 12:08am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model

I was following Diana's suggestion of:
"Do Not Encode to Audio Format for Trading"
from this post:

As I understand it, it is the ability to confirm that it is correct that is the key-- thus the centralized checksum on a lossless or losslessly compressed file.


Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Diana Hamilton Date: Dec 8, 2003 1:07am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Proposed LMA model needs refinement

Hmm, but the no-audio-format idea is something that can only pertain to trading practices, which would be in effect outside the bounds of the LMA, in the relevant trading pool(s) themselves.

If there's a no-audio-trading statement on something, it can't bear on the LMA holdings, because we're not mailing out audio discs to folks over here. :)

Indeed, I'm suggesting file stampers shift their demand from no-mp3 to no-audio, because it forces a stronger fix over at the level where the perceived problem is instead (the trading pool), where quality-degrading audio discs *are* handed around right now.

At the same time, the LMA is taken out of the equation. The newer type of filestamp (for those who do want to stamp files) gives a benefit to the larger world beyond the trading pool- the LMA is freed up to bring more choices to non-traders.

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-12-08 09:07:16